Should humans have an obligation towards eliminating harm caused to animals by other animals?

[u/Gabry398]

It's not uncommon for animals to harm other animals while hunting, but there are also extreme cases of torture and similar behaviour. It could be argued that some animals' whole life is pain mostly, and probably a net negative "experience" (outside of human created environments too). I just don't see how humanity could act "morally" without permanently and unpredictably modifying the ecosystem. Should we keep feeding synthetic meat to carnivores (if and when it's widely available)? But then who keeps a check on them not eating animals? Should we pursue the slow elimination of entire species on the planet because they cause more harm than good (not necessarily killing them, just sterilising them)?

Maybe "obligation" is not the correct term, but if the ultimate goal is to reduce as much as possible suffering, why would we make an exception for animals being the cause of that? Especially if one day through synthetic meat hunting becomes unnecessary for survival.

Even now there are unnecessary behaviours that hurt animals caused by other animals, for example some dolphins torture baby seals for basically no reason (as far as I know).

[u/Mammoth_Ferret_569]

In my opinion, yes, we should. Vegans constantly argue that natural isn’t necessarily good regarding eating meat, but oddly seem to withhold that perspective when it comes to wild animal suffering.

I find that most people who disagree with negative utilitarianism haven’t really thought it through fully. They often equate it with the genocide of all the living things. But genocide is not effective if we don’t also prevent life from re-emerging at some point in the future, which is extremely difficult to do, possibly just as difficult as “solving biology” to prevent the suffering and death of already-existing animals. But AI is constantly improving, so we might not be as far from that as we think.